Who do you think is responsible for making sure that there are enough good paying jobs for people? How would you handle it?

  • metta

    Posts: 39134

    Mar 29, 2015 3:04 AM GMT
    It is human beings that designed society. It is human beings that can change the structure of society. In the United States, who do you think should make sure that when changes are made, that they are done right? When things like technology, lack of regulation, and over regulation destroys jobs, who do you think is responsible, if anyone, to make sure that people will be ok?

    1. The President
    2. Congress
    3. The court system
    4. Corporations
    5. Small Businesses
    6. The individual.
    7. A combination: please specify
    8. No one

    I do think that in the future, there will come a time where technology will make it so that there will not be enough decent paying jobs for people that want them. If that does happen on a permanent basis, how do you think society should handle that? (Maybe we will eventually end up in some form of a society like Star Trek where the workers are volunteers.)

    A little research:


    Robert Reich: In Our Horrifying Future, Very Few People Will Have Work or Make Money

    http://www.alternet.org/robert-reich-our-horrifying-future-very-few-people-will-have-work-or-make-money

    Jaron Lanier: The Internet destroyed the middle class.
    Kodak employed 140,000 people. Instagram, 13. A digital visionary says the Web kills jobs, wealth -- even democracy

    http://www.salon.com/2013/05/12/jaron_lanier_the_internet_destroyed_the_middle_class/







    Stereotypical Reaction:


    Libertarian: No one should get involved. Just let it play out naturally. If people starve or suffer...it will work its way out on its own. If it doesn't then that is just the way it should be.

    Democrat: More government involvement, increase minimum wage, and increase taxes on the wealthy. If people suffer, we should try to do what we can to help them.

    Republican: Make government smaller, cut taxes on the wealthy, cut regulation, and let the money trickle down. If people suffer, it is because they made bad choices, live off of the government, are lazy, or just plain stupid....and they therefore deserve to suffer.
  • metta

    Posts: 39134

    Mar 29, 2015 3:10 AM GMT
    A little humor



  • Mar 29, 2015 1:18 PM GMT
    Universal BASIC income
  • Hypertrophile

    Posts: 1021

    Mar 29, 2015 2:14 PM GMT
    I believe in the concept of the government as the employer of last resort.
  • jeepguySD

    Posts: 651

    Mar 29, 2015 2:50 PM GMT
    Who *should* be responsible is the business community (Chamber of Commerce, corporate America...whatever moniker one wishes to use). But I think history has shown many, many times that corporations care only about their bottom line and not on financial well being on the nation's population.
  • BloodFlame

    Posts: 1768

    Mar 29, 2015 6:03 PM GMT
    To answer the question, I feel the Congress play a big part in this kind of thing. People always seem to blame the President but I feel that they forget that the Congress has the real power as they are the ones who have the real power. Since the Congress is divided and they don't always agree on things, it makes it rather difficult to get things done.

    I fear for what the future holds in terms of jobs because with the progression with technology and how (at least in the US), jobs are being shipped over seas, it makes it very bleak for the future job market.
  • wellwell

    Posts: 2265

    Mar 29, 2015 6:05 PM GMT
    ABOLISH The Fed !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 29, 2015 8:05 PM GMT
    Far Left Liberal: you should ask this socialist question once you move to France since you believe a good paying job is an entitlement. Viva La France.
  • Apparition

    Posts: 3529

    Mar 29, 2015 8:56 PM GMT
    start taxing how long you have owned stock for.

    1 second or less 200 percent
    5 minutes or less 100 percent
    1 hour our less 80%
    1 day or less 50%
    one week or less 40%
    one month or less 30%
    one year or less 20%
    5 years or less 10%
    10 years or less 5%
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 29, 2015 9:10 PM GMT
    Simple, start treating programs and machines that replace people, like people. Tax the corporations that use them for their work based on the wages that would have been paid to people.

    Then, you have the money for a universal basic wage.
  • Hypertrophile

    Posts: 1021

    Mar 29, 2015 9:30 PM GMT
    Apparition saidstart taxing how long you have owned stock for.

    1 second or less 200 percent
    5 minutes or less 100 percent
    1 hour our less 80%
    1 day or less 50%
    one week or less 40%
    one month or less 30%
    one year or less 20%
    5 years or less 10%
    10 years or less 5%


    Or at least tax every stock trade.
  • conservativej...

    Posts: 2465

    Mar 29, 2015 9:54 PM GMT
    JockPunkBohemian saidUniversal BASIC income


    Ah yes, voted against that last year in a referendum proposed by the liberal nut balls in the Geneva canton. It failed roughly 70 percent to 30 percent. The expected income for those who believe someone else should provide for their feeble asses was U.S. equivalent $23,000.

    Good luck with getting the U.S. Congress to pass such an act, a President to sign it, and a people not to revolt in the mean time.
  • Antarktis

    Posts: 213

    Mar 30, 2015 12:54 AM GMT
    Could always reinstate the WPA.

  • Mar 30, 2015 12:58 AM GMT
    conservativejock said
    JockPunkBohemian saidUniversal BASIC income


    Ah yes, voted against that last year in a referendum proposed by the liberal nut balls in the Geneva canton. It failed roughly 70 percent to 30 percent. The expected income for those who believe someone else should provide for their feeble asses was U.S. equivalent $23,000.

    Good luck with getting the U.S. Congress to pass such an act, a President to sign it, and a people not to revolt in the mean time.


    Ubuntu
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 30, 2015 5:44 AM GMT
    Well first things first, unemployment isn't very high right now. The time for a significant investment in job creating ventures was 2009. Unfortunately, congressional Republicans wouldn't let Obama have the success of a truly effective stimulus bill, so we had to endure a slow, painful recovery for the next few years.

    Antarktis saidCould always reinstate the WPA.


    Of course this is a great idea.

    But unfortunately, it would have the side effect of reducing income inequality and strengthening the middle class, thus making it anathema to the right wing, which holds a lot of power in US government.

    It is also very easy to dismiss with superficial but vaguely sensible criticisms that with our current level of technological advancement, capital-intensive means of construction will be much lower cost. Then cue criticism about wasteful government spending from people who won't grasp the big picture.

    It might be more palatable to combine WPA or CCC with unemployment benefits, so that collecting on a state or federal unemployment claim requires 20 hours of work with these programs.
  • tj85016

    Posts: 4123

    Mar 30, 2015 6:53 AM GMT
    well since Congress, the Executive Branch and the S&P500 are the same thing and are pretty much a revolving door (especially in banking), take your pick

    the Fed does some pretty stupid things also

    small business does their best and pretty much gets screwed

  • Mar 30, 2015 11:49 AM GMT

    "The wholesale mechanisation of modern life has increased uniformity a thousandfold. It is everywhere present, in habits, tastes, dress, thoughts and ideas. Its most concentrated dullness is 'public opinion.' Few have the courage to stand out against it. She who refuses to submit is at once labelled 'queer,' 'different,' and decried as a disturbing element in the comfortable stagnancy of modern life."


    - Emma Goldman
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 30, 2015 8:18 PM GMT
    Assuming that there is a responsibility "for making sure that there are enough good paying jobs for people," which I do only for the sake of argument, of the choices offered, I'd pick "no one." Let the market, evenly regulated to prevent it from being anything other than a truly free one, supply products and jobs as needed.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 30, 2015 10:03 PM GMT
    I disagree with the initial premise. Controls breed more of the same. Why should there be restrictions and controls in the first place? Why would one willingly subjugate their life to another person?

    According to the premise in the first post, the automobile maker should have been restricted because of the Blacksmith's and Ferrier's needs to produce horseshoes?

    You had written"When things like technology, lack of regulation, and over regulation destroys jobs, who do you think is responsible, if anyone, to make sure that people will be ok?"

    If technology replaces a previous product and therefore fewer people are required to produce the antiquated product then so be it.

    In personal lives, relationships should be left alone to those involved without requiring outside people to "regulate" the consensual acts of sex. I see no difference in economics.



  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 30, 2015 11:34 PM GMT
    I think a lot of time, it comes down to personal greed or control. I don't think Congress or the president can physically tell Company (private) or public to hire which and which. Part of the problem, most companies have very elaborate *hiring process, from interviews, phones, personality test and online app. You're just like another number or quota for them. Then if you have an interview with them, they make you go through like 4-5 different people who will have different opinion of you. It comes down to who you impress, how to sell yourself as a whole package. It's not like hiring managers will tell you that *we don't like you for your race, skin, education, experience or whatever. They will just send a lame good luck email. icon_redface.gif

    It's sorta sad really if you think about it, a Master Degree grad might have a problem landing a job in his/her field as opposed to like a college or hs dropped out who happened to mingle with the right people. The real world is just like a bigger microcosm of High School, if you're hot, popular, cute, sexy or whatever (males or females) then you will just have an easier time landing a job or getting whatever you want. I'm sure there are countless stories of doing sexual favors to get ahead. Lol but anyway if you don't land the *dream job you want, just think of it that that job is not **The one for you. It's like dating, on your ultimate search of prince charming/husband. So in the end, blame it on human nature? people are shallow ?? lol and life is just not fair. icon_confused.gif

  • metta

    Posts: 39134

    Mar 31, 2015 1:40 AM GMT
    IMO, there has to be some kind of ethical balance in there somewhere. I don't see it as a black and white issue. I don't think it is a good idea to force companies to be less efficient than they can be. We should encourage efficiency. But if we come to a time where we can only create jobs for a small percentage of the population, then I think it is up to the government to try and, not necessarily create unnecessary jobs, but possibly change the boundaries so that more people can work, companies have the staff they need, etc. One thought would be, if we get to a point where the jobs are not there, to slowly cut down on the number of hours that is currently considered to be full time work and increase time off, while still keeping wages that are livable for people. I believe that we must be humane to other human beings and society must be structured to reflect that. Doing nothing or ignoring the problem is not acceptable to me.

    The economic balance created today is man made. The balance in the future will also be man made. It is up to us to determine what the right balance is.
  • BLSHJ

    Posts: 36

    Mar 31, 2015 12:09 PM GMT
    I wouldn’t pretend to know “who” should be best doing it, but I shall refer you to two basic concepts of the founding fathers among others.
    1: The government is to be kept as small as possible.
    2: The government should fear the people.

    Now America have evolved into one, if not the BIGGEST government in the world.

    The Left and Right play the American public like Ping Pong balls.
    The Ping Pong itself [the voters] never wins.

    WHILE THE GOVERNMENT [Left or Right] GETS BIGGER AND BIGGER !

    The founding fathers is absolutely rolling in their grave.

    To think that the American public thinks that they need to form any “new” kind of government to fix these is just crazy.

    It's like saying: “Hey these oils are not putting out the fire, let’s put a DIFFERENT type of oil ! MORE OIL!”
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 31, 2015 1:30 PM GMT
    Well said, BLSHJ.

    As you've heard, repeating more of the same yet expecting different results is insanity, yet that's what we have.

    It's important to note that the public sector/Government doesn't create jobs without the private sector. Why? Government jobs are paid through taxation which requires the taxed individuals to have earned money in the first place. It's rather misleading and tempting to see a agency, such as a branch of the EPA come forth and have your neighbor down the road become hired. Yes, he's now employed by the Government and does have a salary now, but where did that come from? Imagine for a moment what would be the result of the Government trying to force business to close and be the primary "job creator" in an effort to "leave no one jobless". What is the source of all those Government pensions and salaries? The private sector.


  • conservativej...

    Posts: 2465

    Mar 31, 2015 4:58 PM GMT
    MGINSD saidAssuming that there is a responsibility "for making sure that there are enough good paying jobs for people," which I do only for the sake of argument, of the choices offered, I'd pick "no one." Let the market, evenly regulated to prevent it from being anything other than a truly free one, supply products and jobs as needed.


    There is a working model of market based job creation. Though we are at a high unemployment rate compared to years past -- 3.2 percent -- I know of no one in Switzerland complaining of unemployment.

    Having said that, I do not believe we are comparable to the U.S. We are after all not a melting pot.
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Mar 31, 2015 5:31 PM GMT
    MGINSD saidAssuming that there is a responsibility "for making sure that there are enough good paying jobs for people," which I do only for the sake of argument, of the choices offered, I'd pick "no one." Let the market, evenly regulated to prevent it from being anything other than a truly free one, supply products and jobs as needed.


    Come now MGINSD, you can do better than that. You're begging the question. Hidden and cloaked in your statement is the conclusion to your argument, "Let the market, evenly regulated to prevent it from being anything other than a truly free one...."

    The concept of a truly "free" market cannot exist except in the State of Nature. If this were the jungle, then sure, the market is free where the rule of power works. But when you interpose a society, you necessarily are interposing--to greater and lesser extents--the rule of law.

    Pray tell, MGINSD, in your "free" market, do businesses have a priori rights such as landownership? Does contact law allow businesses to sue for breach? May a business act as a trust, or does antitrust law exist in your "free" market? Are there minimum wage laws, and if so, what are they in your "free" market? Does Title VII apply in your "free" market or may an employer fire at-will even for a person's membership in a protected class? May a business sue another business for negligence in your "free" market? Does the common law exist in your "free" market?

    I hope what I'm (over) demonstrating is that your "free" market is a fiction. You superimpose laws (statutory and common law) that YOU find "even" and then claim that those rights may exist but not others. Unless you're arguing for the state of nature (e.g., rule of power, where might makes right), then you should admit your "free" market is little more than tilting the courts and law in favor of big businesses (or whatever group you'd like to favor, perhaps consumers though I'd suspect that's unlikely).

    Ultimately, because businesses and people have redress in court, businesses cannot truly act freely. If a business hurts me, I can sue it. If a business breaks my contract, I can sue it. If XYZ, I can sue it. In short, idea of a "free" market is a legal fiction that cannot exist and is simply a rouse used by the GOP to tilt the court's ability to redress to one focusing on contracts and away from torts (since, generally, businesses WANT contract enforcement with their fellow businesses and tradesmen, and do not want to answer to complaints from consumers, former employees, or innocent-third parties).